Senior moment or outright lie?

[whocares]

There has been a great deal of analysis of the Vice Presidential debate last night. One of my favorite moments was when the Vice President said that the debate was the "first" time he had met Senator Edwards. Well the truth, as documented in news footage, is that they have met on numerous occasions prior to the debate. Two of these events were a National Prayer Breakfast hosted by Senator Edwards and the swearing in of Senator Elizabeth Dole.

[Peggy]

Perhaps it was the first time they had officially been introduced to each other. They may have been at functions together in the past but never actually held a one-on-one discussion. I usually give people the benefit of the doubt on such matters. Why would he "lie" about this?:confused:

Peggy

[slknight]

I think they also met on Tim Russert's "Meet the Press."

[jmarie]

And it certainly was an attention getter as to just how lame a senator John Kerry was. One has to wonder why he even bothered to run and get elected. The Vice President was talking about 4 years of service...pretty poor attendance record, if you will.

[slknight]

Originally posted by jmarie
And it certainly was an attention getter as to just how lame a senator John Kerry was. One has to wonder why he even bothered to run and get elected. The Vice President was talking about 4 years of service...pretty poor attendance record, if you will.

Joyce, are you talking about Kerry's senator voting/attendance record or Edward's? Or both. I thought that in the debate the VP was specifically talking about Edward's record, or maybe I misunderstood.

[badunnin]

Originally posted by jmarie
And it certainly was an attention getter as to just how lame a senator John Kerry was. One has to wonder why he even bothered to run and get elected. The Vice President was talking about 4 years of service...pretty poor attendance record, if you will.

Aside from the obvious connection that John Kerry has to John Edwards, what does he have to do with the comment that VP Cheney made?

[Chefzhat]

I think he was trying to point out Mr. Edwards rather spotty attendance/voting record during his years in office. But, it was a poor comment.

I loved Edwards comment about the Marriage Protection Act, and how states are not required to recognize marriages made in other states. Um, full faith and credit clause, anyone? Duh.

[muriel3002]

I feel for these senators, and other politicians in Washington. How can they keep track of who they have met and who they haven't? If you are in a high-profile job like Cheney, you must meet tons of people every week, at every function, etc. I'm sure it all runs into tons of people whose faces and names must just dissolve into a mass of mucky confusion....

IMO

[MusicMom]

Originally posted by Chefzhat
II loved Edwards comment about the Marriage Protection Act, and how states are not required to recognize marriages made in other states. Um, full faith and credit clause, anyone? Duh.

Could you clarify this for me? I thought there had been a lot of talk lately about states not recognizing the gay marriages or civil unions established in other states. There was just a child custody case in Virginia in which the judge refused to acknowledge a lesbian partnership from another state.

Re the meetings between Cheney and Edwards, the Washington Post has a photo of the two sitting next to each other at a prayer breakfast in 2001 and reports that Cheney thanked Senator Edwards by name in his speech. The White House spin is that those other times were "casual encounters" not actual meetings.

[Beth H]

I think he was trying to point out Mr. Edwards rather spotty attendance/voting record during his years in office.

I think so too - I don't think he intentially "lied." I mean, obviously whether they had ever met or not is easy to prove with video/pictures/recollections of other people. He wasn't being totally straight-forward with his own Senate participation, though - usually when he goes to the Senate for his weekly meetings, he only meets with the Republican caucus. In fact, when Cheney told Senator Leahey (a Democrat) to f*** off, apparently Leahey had been given him (Cheney) a hard time about not meeting with Democrats more often. Cheney is not required that often to cast a tie-breaking vote. So it is not surprising that he does not know Edwards, a relatively new senator from the Democratic party, very well.

[jmarie]

slknight

I meant Edwards record. Sorry for the goof. Kerry was there.

[badunnin]

Originally posted by jmarie
slknight

I meant Edwards record. Sorry for the goof. Kerry was there.

Joyce - thanks for the clarification. :)

I'm not sure how I feel on this one. I don't like Cheney. I don't trust him. But I don't know if he was being malicious/manipulative on this or not.

[slknight]

Originally posted by badunnin


Joyce - thanks for the clarification. :)

I'm not sure how I feel on this one. I don't like Cheney. I don't trust him. But I don't know if he was being malicious/manipulative on this or not.

Yes, thanks Joyce for clarifying.

Bethany, I feel exactly the same way.

[AdGirl]

I thought Cheney's comment was brash and misleading. When he said it, I thought to myself "wow, that was really a great way to get his point across, but is it really true?" You could tell by Edwards' facial reaction that he was surprised Cheney tried to say they hadn't met! I think Cheney knew all along that it wasn't true and that it would come out later, but it that it was the most effective way to make his point.

p.s. I wonder why Edwards was such an absentee in Congress? He didn't try to refute the claim at all, neither at the debate nor afterwards. I have to admit that I was pretty surprised at his lack of attendance...

[Beth H]

p.s. I wonder why Edwards was such an absentee in Congress? He didn't try to refute the claim at all, neither at the debate nor afterwards. I have to admit that I was pretty surprised at his lack of attendance...

This is a valid critcism of Edwards, I think. He has been running for office - first in the primaries and now for the Vice Presidency - for months now. A friend of mine whose parents live in North Carolina (and are staunch Democrats) have been disappointed with him as a Senator - his lack of time both in his home state and in the Senate.

[Laurielee]

Hi Peggy! "I usually give people the benefit of the doubt on such matters. Why would he "lie" about this?" Peggy,

I honestly dont know what was behind his statement

the news showed a video clipthis morning where they were both at a meeting, I think it was some kind of prayer breakfast where Cheney and Edwards shook hands and chatted for a moment and they showed a few other clip of them together in the past


And here is a good analysis of the debate

Impressive, but misleading, remarks in debate
VP candidates focused on Iraq war, voting records

Pool / Reuters
Vice President Dick Cheney, left, and the Democratic vice presidential nominee, Sen. John Edwards, center, debate Tuesday night in front of moderator Gwen Ifill at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.
By Glenn Kessler and Jim VandeHei

Updated: 3:12 p.m. ET Oct. 6, 2004WASHINGTON - Sen. John Edwards and Vice President Cheney clashed repeatedly in their debate last night, making impressive-sounding but misleading statements on issues including the war in Iraq, tax cuts and each other's records, often omitting key facts along the way.

Early in the debate, Cheney snapped at Edwards, "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." But in numerous interviews, Cheney has skated close to the line in ways that may have certainly left that impression on viewers, usually when he cited the possibility that Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001, met with an Iraqi official — even after that theory was largely discredited.

On Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet The Press" that "it's been pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." On March 24, 2002, Cheney again told NBC, "We discovered ... the allegation that one of the lead hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague."

On Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney, again on "Meet the Press," said that Atta "did apparently travel to Prague. ... We have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer a few months before the attacks on the World Trade Center." And a year ago, also on "Meet the Press," Cheney described Iraq as part of "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

In the debate, Cheney referred to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as having "an established relationship with al Qaeda" and said then-CIA Director George J. Tenet talked about "a 10-year relationship" in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. What Tenet cited were several "high-level contacts" over a 10-year period, but he also said the agency reported they never led to any cooperative activity.

Edwards, for his part, asserted that the war in Iraq has cost $200 billion "and counting," an assertion that Cheney called him on. Cheney said the government has "allocated" $120 billion. As of Sept. 30, the government has spent about $120 billion, and it has allocated — or plans to spend — $174 billion. The tab should run as high as $200 billion in the next year once other expected supplemental spending is added.

Cheney suggested that an agreement had been reached on debt relief for Iraq, saying that "the allies have stepped forward and agreed to reduce and forgive Iraqi debt to the tune of nearly $80 billion, by one estimate." While there are reports of some sort of agreement, no plan has been made public. Cheney also said that allies had contributed $14 billion in "direct aid." Actually, $13 billion was pledged, but only $1 billion has arrived.

Cheney also said Iraqi security forces have "taken almost 50 percent of the casualties in operations in Iraq, which leaves the U.S. with 50 percent, not 90 percent." The United States does not keep track of Iraqi casualties, either civilian or in the security services. Recently, a senior U.S. official in Baghdad estimated that 750 Iraqi policemen have been killed but has no estimate of those wounded. The United States as of yesterday has had 1,061 deaths and 7,730 wounded.

Misleading statements over voting records
Cheney and Edwards tangled repeatedly over each other's voting records, or the record of presidential challenger John F. Kerry. But many of these votes took place long ago and appear to have little relevance to current issues. Edwards cited a long list of conservative votes by Cheney, made decades ago when he was a House member from Wyoming.

Cheney said Kerry once vowed to allow a veto by the United Nations over U.S. troops. This refers to a statement made nearly 35 years ago, when Kerry gave an interview to the Harvard Crimson, 10 months after he had returned from the Vietnam War angry and disillusioned by his experiences there.

Cheney said Kerry's tax-cut rollback would hit 900,000 small businesses. This is misleading. Under Cheney's definition, a small business is any taxpayer who includes some income from a small business investment, partnership, limited liability corporation or trust. By that definition, every partner at a huge accounting firm or at the largest law firm would represent small businesses. According to IRS data, a tiny fraction of small business "S-corporations" earn enough profits to be in the top two tax brackets. Most are in the bottom two brackets.

Edwards asserted that "millionaires sitting by their swimming pool ... pay a lower tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving" in Iraq. President Bush last year cut the tax rate on dividends to 15 percent, whereas most soldiers would be in a 15 percent tax bracket — and pay an effective rate much less after taking deductions for children and mortgages.

Edwards also asserted that "the president is proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is completely unnecessary." But Bush simply endorsed such an amendment that had already been introduced on Capitol Hill.

Cheney continued to charge that Kerry voted 98 times to raise taxes. But FactCheck.org — a nonpartisan group Cheney cited during the debate as a fair data checker — says nearly half were not for tax increases per se and many others were on procedural motions.

Both candidates promised to cut the deficit in half in four years. Independent budget experts say neither the Republican nor the Democratic ticket can make good on that promise unless it scales back funding promises made during the campaign. The Kerry health care plan, for instance, could cost as much as $1 trillion, experts say, which would eat up most if not all of the revenue generated by raising taxes on those making more than $200,000 a year. Edwards said the Democratic ticket is willing to scale back programs to make the numbers work.

Bush is digging an even deeper hole, experts say, because he has promised to partially privatize Social Security, which carries a transition cost likely to be much bigger than that of Kerry's health care plan.

Edwards asserted that "in the last four years, 1.6 million private-sector jobs have been lost." The actual number is close to 900,000 and will likely shrink further when Friday's jobs reports is released, though Bush is the first president in 72 years to preside over an overall job loss.

Edwards also misleadingly charged that the Bush administration is "for outsourcing of jobs." The Bush-Cheney ticket has not advocated sending jobs overseas, though administration officials have talked about how outsourcing can be good for the U.S. economy, a position many private economists echo.

Cheney charged that Kerry and Edwards oppose the No Child Left Behind education law, which imposes new accountability standards on public schools. Both senators voted for the law and support some modifications and billions of dollars to fully fund the education program.

Edwards claimed that part of Halliburton Corp.'s money in Iraqi contracts should have been withheld because the company is under investigation. Some funds were withheld but then paid out after an Army audit studied the matter.

Staff writers Mike Allen, Jonathan Weisman and Walter Pincus contributed to this report.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company



laurie

[aggie94]

Originally posted by Chefzhat
I loved Edwards comment about the Marriage Protection Act, and how states are not required to recognize marriages made in other states. Um, full faith and credit clause, anyone? Duh.

Debie,

I *think* his comment was intended to be specifically limited to same-sex marriages, which the Defense of Marriage Act doesn't require states to recognize. Even if that's not what he meant, it's my understanding that the Full Faith and Credit clause does not always extend to marriages the same way it does to judicial proceedings. For example, I believe a state can choose not to recognize a marriage that would have been invalid if it had taken place within its own borders or that violates that state's public policy. Maybe that's what he meant by states not being required to recognize marriages of other states, although the way he phrased it was a bit misleading and confusing, IMO.

[Chefzhat]

Eva, you might be right. That is the problem with these debates - no time to say what they really mean.

BTW - Hi Eva!! Howareya?

Debie

[aggie94]

Originally posted by Chefzhat
BTW - Hi Eva!! Howareya?

Hi back! :D I'm doing great - really busy. I haven't seen you around much either - how are you???

[cminmd]

Full Faith and Credit does not apply to marriages. That is why some states still had anti-Miscegenation laws as late as the 1950's, and they did not have to recognise the marriages between blacks and whites who moved in from other states. Same thing for civil unions from Vermont. Currently they only offer legal protection within Vermont. Vermont can not even force an out of state company to offer the same protections. Some states will not recognize "Common Law Marriages' while other states will.

I think the most misleading statement made was he implied he had been in congress most Tuesdays to preside over the days legislation. He has in fact presided twice over the session. Most Tuesdays if he comes to the hill at all it is just for the Republican Senate Strategy Luncheon then he's gone.

Edwards actually had an excellent attendance record in the Senate before his run for president. That is to be expected- running for President is a full time job times two. The same way the Bush was absent from his job as Governor of Texas while he ran for President. Some states have laws that you can not run for one office while you are elected and serving in another- but Congress and Texas do not.

[Chefzhat]

Originally posted by cminmd
Full Faith and Credit does not apply to marriages. That is why some states still had anti-Miscegenation laws as late as the 1950's, and they did not have to recognise the marriages between blacks and whites who moved in from other states.

I respectfully disagree. Historically FF&C has applied to marriages, at least by intent. For a state to not recognize a marriage now it mustto have a law on the books making it illagal. My marriage is recognized in all 50 states and if I died in another state, my dh would have official recognition as my husband. I wish I could find some supreme court rulings to back me up, but I can't. The state we live in is currently working on passing a Marriage Protection act - which I think is terrible. Not that I support gay marriage, I just don't think that the constitution should be amended in order to exclude a specific group of people.

Actually, we just finished a long section on this issue in my Constitutional Law class - which is why the original comment from Senator Edwards made me look up from my book! At last - something in class that applies to a current situation! I love school!

[badunnin]

Originally posted by Chefzhat


I respectfully disagree. Historically FF&C has applied to marriages, at least by intent. For a state to not recognize a marriage now it mustto have a law on the books making it illagal. My marriage is recognized in all 50 states and if I died in another state, my dh would have official recognition as my husband. I wish I could find some supreme court rulings to back me up, but I can't. The state we live in is currently working on passing a Marriage Protection act - which I think is terrible. Not that I support gay marriage, I just don't think that the constitution should be amended in order to exclude a specific group of people.


Debie - YOUR marriage is recognized by all 50, but not EVERY marriage is.

[Chefzhat]

Any marriage that has an official license should be recognized in all 50 states. I'm not talking about recent licenses that have been issues for same-sex couples. Those licenses are what is in dispute, and I don't believe that those licenses are recognized in all 50 states, especially if a state has a protection of marriage act that defines what marriage is. But the vast majority of marriages are.

Hey Eva - busy here too. But I miss ya!:)

[badunnin]

Originally posted by Chefzhat
Any marriage that has an official license should be recognized in all 50 states. I'm not talking about recent licenses that have been issues for same-sex couples. Those licenses are what is in dispute, and I don't believe that those licenses are recognized in all 50 states, especially if a state has a protection of marriage act that defines what marriage is. But the vast majority of marriages are.

Hey Eva - busy here too. But I miss ya!:)

Once again, though, they SHOULD be recognized, but are not. If a same-sex couple is married in MA, that union, despite the legality of it in the state of MA, will not be recognized in MI. If FF&C applies to marriage, there should be no question whether or not it will apply. It wouldn't be an issue. But it IS an issue.

[Chefzhat]

Bethany, Eva explains why in her post. Restrictions of the DOMA Act and issues of legality get in the way. I said that FF&C is applied to marriages through intent. My marriage is one that is recognized in Michigan. If Indiana had a policy against men named Don and women named Debie specifically being married, it would not be recognized in Indiana. And I'd try not to go there on vacation!

I'd rather be friends than argue with you Bethany. I am on your side here. I said earlier that I don't agree with Michigan's pending DOMA legislation.